Quality Assessment of the Road Traffic Health and Safety Apps with a Focus on the Five Rights of Information Management.

Objective: The expansion of mobile applications as a tool for road traffic health and safety may develop several issues from the perspective of information management. Quality assessment of these apps, especially from an information system management perspective, appears inevitable, as their possible low quality may cause irreversible injury or fatal consequences. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of the apps in the three subcategories of road traffic safety apps (including Accident Record and Report (ARR), Distraction Management (DM), and Vehicle Operating, Fixing, and Maintenance (VOFM)) using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), which rates 23 evaluation criteria organized in five domains (Engagement, Esthetics, Information, and Subjective Quality) with particular attention to the five rights framework of health information system.

Method: The researchers retrieved road traffic health and safety mobile apps from Google Play. First, the domain expert panel (n= 7) (from disciplines of HIM and medical informatics) was formed. They scrutinized and discussed the MARS items and mapped them into the five rights framework of information quality. Moreover, the researchers assigned the apps to the information system or decision support system category. Two researchers independently reviewed the apps and conducted the qualitative content analysis to categorize them into ARR, DM, and VOFM classes. Finally, the quality of the apps was assessed using the MARS rating scale (max=5) in terms of 1) app classification category with a descriptive aim; 2) app subjective and objective quality categories comprised of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information sections; and 3) an optional app-specific section. The mean scores for the subjective quality, objective quality, and app-specific sections were calculated separately for each mobile app. A score ≥ 3.0 was considered acceptable.

Results: A total number of 42 apps met the criteria for the assessment. The average objective quality scores were computed as 2.6, 2.2, and 3.0 for the ARR, DM, and VOFM apps, respectively. Therefore, the quality of the apps in the ARR and DM subgroups was not acceptable. Moreover, the quality of the apps in the VOFM subcategory was considered moderate. Furthermore, the subjective quality and app-specific sections of apps in the ARR and DM categories were less than moderate. Most apps had the potential of an information system or decision support system. Also, the criteria measured by MARS could be mapped to the five rights framework of information management.

Conclusion: The findings of this study revealed the existing gaps in three subcategories of road traffic safety apps. Considering the multiple criteria of the MARS and having in mind the framework of five rights, developers of the apps may develop better products in road traffic health and safety.